Yea it is. LPMEOH process Methanol. We can produce it for under $1.50 for a gasoline gallon equivalent (i.e. about 2 gallons of methanol @ $.60-70/gal)

All you need to do is remove/encapsulate any aluminum from the fuel stream because methanol is mildly acidic and oxidizes aluminum. LPMEOH methanol is VASTLY superior as a mid-game strategy than bio-ethanol.

Lindsay Graham just gets our goat every time. You would think S.C. could do alot better than him…

You know McCain would be in that bunch if he wasnt running for Pres too…

When politicians try to forecast and/or dictate what energy sources will be practical 10 or 20 years in the future, you can be sure that whatever they do will be an absolute disaster.

So the 20 year plan should be something like “provide at least 30% additional energy in the USA by 2005 and provide additional energy to match population and industrial growth going forward from there at an inflation-adjusted cost per energy unit which is no greater than the average cost of comparable energy in 2007.”

The objective needs to be kept generic so that new fuels which may be unknown at this time are not precluded. It also needs to be broad so that government does not try to dictate the energy delivery medium (electricity, chemical fuels, radiation, electromagnetic, or something new and entirely unknown to us now), or the type of fuel. What if we discover that oil is an inexhaustable resource and it becomes available at $10 per barrel again?

I don’t know if people who are dreaming of electric cars are prepared for the reality of dealing with the batteries.

DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Hey, internal combustion engines are no picnic either.

Big S on August 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM

But, they are by far the best bang for the buck.

“85 percent of vehicles.”

Buy our new model year ‘29 Super Hummer-Ultra SUV and get 5 bicycles free!

pedestrian on August 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM

The camels nose under the tent.

You would think they would have learned something from the Ethanol fiasco…as well as the coming PTC (outlandish tax credits for wind) fiasco. Each of these measures encourages market actions which are uneconomical, undesirable, and which produce little or no new energy!!!

The right way to push technology is to pick a broad subject, define the parameters of success broadly and functionally (without interfering with the technology choices), and fund R&D only!!! Production should always be self-funding: if it’s not, the technology is a loser and should be dropped!

The proposed “compromise” assumes that petroleum is a “nonrenewable” and is “undesirable”. There is a large body of evidence that neither assumption is valid.

Nobody has demonstrated any means of safely storing, transporting, delivering and utilizing portable energy which is superior to petroleum products. In addition, petroleum is a basic ingredient in thousands of other items we use every day: demonizing petroleum is a silly exercise which ignores this reality.

At least they see there is a problem, but this weak approach will not fix it….

Alternative sources just don’t work. Batteries are horridly expensive and don’t last. They also need a source for their charging. That source needs energy. Windmills are as utterly disfiguring of the landscape as would be drilling ANYWHERE in ANWR. Besides, there is not enough reliable wind energy to power California let alone the entire US. Solar power would require unsightly facilities sprinkled all over the US landscape, too. At 1kW per square meter we’d need over 200 million square meters of collector (with current efficiencies) to handle California at peak demand. And that would leave is slightly energy deficient most of the day and severely energy deficient at night. We’re back to batteries again to keep up the slack – and they do not last. That would be an interesting blot on the landscape with many square miles worth of unreliability problems from connections and wiring. (All that wonderful metal to harvest and sell to junk dealers might make interesting problems, too.)

Alternative energy sources have not been adequately thought out. Promising items are on the horizon, further out than the energy we can harvest now from the ground. The environment might be nice to save. But when the danger is a small parcel of blot in a God forsaken chunk of ANWR and off shore drilling compared to killing off a nation’s economy, I pick the humans as the rightful winners here.

{^_^}

The ideal would be batteries powered by nuclear/wind/solar/hydroelectic/etc. sources. Why all the bashing of electric cars? We should use hydrocarbons as long as necesary, but we shouldn’t fetishize them.

Big S on August 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Are you my new stalker or stomething? I have a few but hey what is one more!

So tell me there brainiac… what other viable alternative fuels are able to give the same large scale enery that Oil, Natural Gas or Coal?

And saying Nuclear doesn’t count because you can’t drive it around. Not do ships that use it, because they usually take multitudes of people around the world… The Navy is good for that. So let me hear your options for the single user?!

Waits with baited breath.

No compromise, you RINOS.

dogsoldier on August 2, 2008 at 7:26 AM

I agree. Now is not the time for compromise. The American people are ready to go full speed ahead with ALL forms of domestic energy. Compromise would probably keep us out of ANWAR when that is the place to start! Compromise would probably limit the number of nuclear plants and refineries. Would shale oil be part of a compromise plan? Doubtful. Compromise would also let Obama back in the game. He’s already talking compromise himself.

NO COMPROMISE!

What rare materials are used in quantity in computers? They’re made of mostly silicon and plastic.

Tantalum in the high-frequency bypass capacitors. Microscopic amounts of gold covering the contacts. Possibly germanium in the low-temperature solders. LEDs may contain indium or gallium as well as arsenic (in parts-per-million concentrations). Other semiconductors may contain arsenic in similar quantities.

Those in the gang of 10 are Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La; Saxby Chambliss; R-Ga, John Thune, R-S.D.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

I count 9. Who is the 10th?

Something stinks about this, and I’m not just referring to the inclusion of Mary Landrieu.